Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Answer the question or admit you misspoke. When you make a claim, you need to back it up. Quit trying to deflect the tough questions.
Do tell. What is the conclusive evidence for evolution. Specifics, please.
My personal favourites, in no particular order, are:Do tell. What is the conclusive evidence for evolution. Specifics, please.
I saw this in another thread yesterday, I can't remember if it was you or not, mathetes, but how do creationists not know the evidence for evolution? Is it hidden from them? Is google disabled on their computers? Are there creationist police who check on a daily basis that they aren't exposed to any scientific literature? Or have they just been told over and over again that there isn't any evidence for evolution and it's all a massive hoax/conspiracy/evil plot by Dr Nasty/work of the devil/something equally barmy on a global scale in order to...to...well, who knows what the point is supposed to be.
It must be one of the above or there wouldn't be a constant stream of these poor bewildered devils parroting this fatuous mantra.
I disagree. By that logic, we can never know anything about the past, as we can't go back in time. But, of course, that's not the case, as the past leaves relics. Forensics exists because we can deduce what happened in the past through careful analysis and experimentation of the evidence. Likewise, there's no fundamental reason why we can't do the same with the distance past. Relics such as fossils, the geologic column, the moving seabed, ice core samples, dendochronology, radiometric dating, etc, all allow us to deduce what happened in the past.All of evolution (macro-evolution) requires faith because it is not testable. You cannot go back in time and observe the evolution of a single cell organism all the way to a human being. It requires faith to believe such a transition could have occured.
Do tell. What is the conclusive evidence for evolution. Specifics, please.
My personal favourites, in no particular order, are:
Those are off the top of my head.
- Twin-nested hierarchy - the ability to place organisms into hierarchical taxonomy based on a feature (such as anatomy), and into another hierarchy based on another feature (such as a protein), and those two hierarchies are always the same, as evolution requires. This could just as easily be evidence of a common designer. Automobiles of one manufacturer share common parts for different models. The thing they have in commmon is the same manufacturer.
- DNA - when Darwin first proposed his theory, he simply posited the existence of some biological mechanism that allowed for variable inheritance. The discovery of DNA, mutations, and the whole field of genetics, validates that fundamental prediction. DNA is information. Only intelligence creates information.
- Macroevolution - there are many observed instances of species evolving brand-new features. The best example is Lemski's 20-year-long study of E. coli, which, over 44,000 generations, evolved the new ability to ingest citric acid directly from its environs, rather than synthesising it internally - a useful feature not seen in E. coli. We also see species of bacteria that can ingest nylon - a synthetic material. The bacteria remains a bacteria. Species are man made classifications. God created all animals in created kinds. One created kind did not evolve from another. They were all created in the six days of creation just as scripture says.
- Speciation - as evolution requires, species speciate when genetically isolated. Not only can this be readily induced in the lab (fruit flies being a common example*), it's seen to occur naturally in the wild, and there are striking examples in the form of rings species, all operating exactly as evolution requires. See response to item 3. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly.
- Homology - species exhibit the same anatomical features as you would expect with common ancestry. The bones in the human hand mirror those in apes, cetaceans, birds, etc, with dissimilarity directly corresponding to their 'distance' on the tree of life. See response to item 1. This is just as easily evidence of a common designer.
- Vestigial features - not all features are eternally useful, and so we expect organisms to have features of limited use, but which bear the hallmarks of their ancestors. The quintessential examples are in the cetaceans: they breath air through lungs, they move via caudal oscillation (the tail and spine goes up and down, echoing their terrestrial quadrupedal ancestors, not side to side, like water-breathing fish), they have a pelvis and hindlimbs, they birth live, air-breathing offspring, etc. Where is the mass of transitional fossils we would expect to see. Why are there distinct kinds of animals in existence today and not animals in a transitional phase between two types.
*Yes, they're still flies. No, evolution doesn't say they should turn into anything else.
I disagree. By that logic, we can never know anything about the past, as we can't go back in time. But, of course, that's not the case, as the past leaves relics. Forensics exists because we can deduce what happened in the past through careful analysis and experimentation of the evidence. Likewise, there's no fundamental reason why we can't do the same with the distance past. Relics such as fossils, the geologic column, the moving seabed, ice core samples, dendochronology, radiometric dating, etc, all allow us to deduce what happened in the past.
You're right that we can't go back in time and directly observe with our own eyeballs, but you're wrong in that that's an obstacle.
All of evolution (macro-evolution) requires faith because it is not testable. You cannot go back in time and observe the evolution of a single cell organism all the way to a human being. It requires faith to believe such a transition could have occured.
If scientists were to find chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, would you consider that evidence of the Exodus?
Irrelevant: the fact remains that this twin-nested hierarchy constitutes very good evidence indeed for evolution. The fact that no organism sits outside taxonomy, the fact that you can take any feature or protein and generate the same hierarchy each time, is exactly what evolution predicts, and must be true for evolution to be true. Thus, it proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, the truth of evolution, as per your request.This could just as easily be evidence of a common designer. Automobiles of one manufacturer share common parts for different models. The thing they have in commmon is the same manufacturer.Wiccan_Child said:Twin-nested hierarchy - the ability to place organisms into hierarchical taxonomy based on a feature (such as anatomy), and into another hierarchy based on another feature (such as a protein), and those two hierarchies are always the same, as evolution requires.
This is, again, irrelevant. Even if only an intelligence could have created DNA (and I'll explain in a moment why that isn't the case), the fact remains that the existence of DNA, as well as the way it behaves, completely fulfils the prediction made by Darwin in the early days of evolution, that there be some inherent, biological mechanism for variable inheritance.DNA is information. Only intelligence creates information.Wiccan_Child said:DNA - when Darwin first proposed his theory, he simply posited the existence of some biological mechanism that allowed for variable inheritance. The discovery of DNA, mutations, and the whole field of genetics, validates that fundamental prediction.
I don't quite know what to make of your reply. You haven't addressed any of my points regarding macroevolution, you've just spoken at me, not to me, so there's no a lot I can say, because you haven't said anything to refute my point - do you, therefore, accept it?The bacteria remains a bacteria. Species are man made classifications. God created all animals in created kinds. One created kind did not evolve from another. They were all created in the six days of creation just as scripture says.Wiccan_Child said:Macroevolution - there are many observed instances of species evolving brand-new features. The best example is Lemski's 20-year-long study of E. coli, which, over 44,000 generations, evolved the new ability to ingest citric acid directly from its environs, rather than synthesising it internally - a useful feature not seen in E. coli. We also see species of bacteria that can ingest nylon - a synthetic material.
Yes, and you'll notice that this reply is so common, so predictable, that I coutnered it before you even made it. You say that the fruit fly remains a fruit fly. That is absolutely correct, a valid and true observation if ever there was one. But I'm stymied as to its relevance - are you suggesting that the fruit fly become something else? If so, why? Do you believe that's what evolution requires?See response to item 3. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly.Wiccan_Child said:Speciation - as evolution requires, species speciate when genetically isolated. Not only can this be readily induced in the lab (fruit flies being a common example*), it's seen to occur naturally in the wild, and there are striking examples in the form of rings species, all operating exactly as evolution requires.
Your reply is equally irrelevant: regardless of whether or not homology constitutes evidence for a common designer (it doesn't; see above), it still constitutes evidence for evolution, as per your request.See response to item 1. This is just as easily evidence of a common designer.Wiccan_Child said:Homology - species exhibit the same anatomical features as you would expect with common ancestry. The bones in the human hand mirror those in apes, cetaceans, birds, etc, with dissimilarity directly corresponding to their 'distance' on the tree of life.
First, none of these questions have any relevance to my point. Does that mean you accept vestigial features, such as those found on cetaceans, to be evidence for evolution?Where is the mass of transitional fossils we would expect to see. Why are there distinct kinds of animals in existence today and not animals in a transitional phase between two types.Wiccan_Child said:Vestigial features - not all features are eternally useful, and so we expect organisms to have features of limited use, but which bear the hallmarks of their ancestors. The quintessential examples are in the cetaceans: they breath air through lungs, they move via caudal oscillation (the tail and spine goes up and down, echoing their terrestrial quadrupedal ancestors, not side to side, like water-breathing fish), they have a pelvis and hindlimbs, they birth live, air-breathing offspring, etc.
Yes, with the caveat that there are other, potentially more plausible explanations for chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea. The story of Exodus requires that such wheels be there, so finding them would indeed be evidence for the story. Not conclusive evidence, mind you, but evidence nonetheless.If scientists were to find chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, would you consider that evidence of the Exodus?
This is the typical response I hear from evolutionists. They make appeals to all the so called irrefutable proof for evolution, but cannot expound on that proof themselves. They have accepted on faith that evolution is true because they have been taught it is true from 12 years of indoctrination in government schools.
Science doesn't do proofs, it does evidence and theories based on the evidence. The theories are then tested to see if the results of the test support or undermine the theory. If the new evidence from the test doesn't fit the theory then the theory is either scrapped or altered: the improved theory fits more evidence. After 150 years no one has managed to to find evidence that doesn't fit the theory of evolution. That is why we say that an anomaly like rabbits in the Cambrian would be a problem. It wouldn't fit the theory. Everything we know fits the theory. If something didn't it would be big news.
Science doesn't do faith either. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is, by definition, about evidence. Were you ever asked to do an experiment in science class? Were you encouraged to do your own research and projects to test scientific theories in science class? Or did they ask you to close your eyes and pray really hard for the strength to believe in what was being taught, because if you didn't believe it you would go to hell and suffer unimaginable terror and agony for all eternity?
Which approach sounds more like indoctrination to you?
It doesn't say how. Have you read it?
You talk a lot about evidence, but don't expound on this evidence. What is the irrefutable proof for evolution.
You talk a lot about evidence, but don't expound on this evidence. What is the irrefutable proof for evolution.
Irrelevant: the fact remains that this twin-nested hierarchy constitutes very good evidence indeed for evolution. The fact that no organism sits outside taxonomy, the fact that you can take any feature or protein and generate the same hierarchy each time, is exactly what evolution predicts, and must be true for evolution to be true. Thus, it proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, the truth of evolution, as per your request.
By contrast, if evolution wasn't true, there'd be no reason to suppose that this hierarchy would exist. A common designer may well reuse old designs, but that raises a number of questions: why reuse designs, when the omniscient being can create entirely new features? Why reuse designs in such a way that it creates a taxonomic system, where only mammals and all mammals have hair, middle ear bones, etc? Why stick rigidly to this system, even when it causes serious harm to the host (for example, the placement of the windpipe and foodpipe in the neck make choking an unnecessarily likely hazard; why? Why make aquatic creatures but give them lungs instead of gills? Etc).
It's an example of ad hoc reasoning to fit twin-nested hierarchy into Creationism. Yes, it doesn't disprove Creationism (and I never said it was, only that it provided scientific proof of evolution), but it is very contrived in the Creationist model, while it has a concrete and well-understood origin under the evolutionist model.
In other words, no, it's not evidence of a common designer, as there is no reasoning that leads one to predict a twin-nested hierarchy under Creationism. By contrast, this is perfectly predicted under evolution.
This is, again, irrelevant. Even if only an intelligence could have created DNA (and I'll explain in a moment why that isn't the case), the fact remains that the existence of DNA, as well as the way it behaves, completely fulfils the prediction made by Darwin in the early days of evolution, that there be some inherent, biological mechanism for variable inheritance.
It could easily have been that there is no mechanism, thus disproving evolution forever. But, instead, the sheer existence of DNA, and not to mention the discoveries made within the field of genetics, do constitute evidence beyond all reasonable doubt for evolution - as per your request.
I don't quite know what to make of your reply. You haven't addressed any of my points regarding macroevolution, you've just spoken at me, not to me, so there's no a lot I can say, because you haven't said anything to refute my point - do you, therefore, accept it?
"The bacteria [sic] remains a bacteria [sic]" - correct. I don't know what to make of this. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be?
"Species are man made classifications" - correct, but they have a basis in objective reality. The word 'star' is a man-made classification, but stars do exist.
"God created all animals in created kinds. One created kind did not evolve from another. They were all created in the six days of creation just as scripture says." - allegedly, but what's your point? What relevance does this have to my point?
Yes, and you'll notice that this reply is so common, so predictable, that I coutnered it before you even made it. You say that the fruit fly remains a fruit fly. That is absolutely correct, a valid and true observation if ever there was one. But I'm stymied as to its relevance - are you suggesting that the fruit fly become something else? If so, why? Do you believe that's what evolution requires?
Your reply is equally irrelevant: regardless of whether or not homology constitutes evidence for a common designer (it doesn't; see above), it still constitutes evidence for evolution, as per your request.
First, none of these questions have any relevance to my point. Does that mean you accept vestigial features, such as those found on cetaceans, to be evidence for evolution?
Second, your questions bely a misunderstanding of what we expect to find should evolution be true. The notion of a 'transitional' form implies some sort of foresight to evolution, that species evolve towards some other form - they don't. In essence, every organism, every fossil, is a transition between its mother and its daughter. The first terrestrial species, the first avian species, etc, can be cited as 'transitional' species, but that still misses the point.
Anyway. "Where are the fossils?" They're everywhere. We have literally millions of them, stored in every museum, either on display or in racks of drawers.
"Why are there distinct kinds of animals?" The simple answer is, there's not. Species don't exist in isolation, we see species exist as a blend as we go along the tree of life. In the case of ring species, we can see this geographically, rather than temporally. E. eschscholtzii are salamanders that live around a mountain, and where the 19 populations can breed with their neighbours - but the two at the far ends can't breed with each other. This is what evolution predicts, but the only explanation in Creationism is ad hoc and contrived.
We see 'transitional' species in the form of gliding snakes and squirrels - species undergoing the same process ancient reptiles did as they developed true flight. Each step being an improvement on the last, until one feature (gliding) develops into another (flight).
What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?